4 ms·
SHA-2 is has more reliable HW acceleration from what I’ve seen. SHA-1 SW according to smhasher is 350mib/s as is MD5, so never use MD5 as SHA-1 is always stron
by vlovich123 3y ago
SHA-2 is has more reliable HW acceleration from what I’ve seen.
SHA-1 SW according to smhasher is 350mib/s as is MD5, so never use MD5 as SHA-1 is always stronger (sha2 supposedly is 150mib/s). Hw accelerated SHA-1 and SHA-2 are both ~1.5 Gib/s and on x86 HW acceleration is always available.
Blake3 is the most interesting because it’s competitive with SHA2 even without HW acceleration. I wonder how it would fare with HW acceleration.
- throw0101c 3y ago> Blake3 is the most interesting […] Not really? SHA-2 was released in 2001: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2 Blake3 was released 2020. I'm sure if the folks that created SHA-2 did a hash in 2020 they could do something better/faster as well.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vlovich123 3y agoFirst, each Blake version was written by a totally different authors AFAICT so while each version is faster, making a faster construction was a totally different team. I don't see why you're putting so much confidence that the original SHA-2 team could come up with a faster hash function. FWIW, SHA-3 is slower than SHA-2 although of course SHA-3 is a totally different construction from SHA-2 by design.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]